EPA moves to clamp down on nonpoint sources of water pollution At the same time that EPA officials touted success of the Clean Water Act on its 25th anniversary in October, the large, mostly unregulated nonpoint source pollution problem reared its head. Nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff from urban and rural lands, including publicly owned treatment plants, forestry operations, and farms, is not regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Recent actions by Congress to control it have resulted in an expansion of the CWA discharge permit requirement for large pollution sources. Millions of small sources, however, such as private lawns and golf courses, still contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Almost half of the states have laws in place regulating polluted runoff, according to James McElfish, an attorney with the Environmental Law Institute, who worked with EPA on a report detailing state nonpoint source rules. But the effectiveness of state laws varies, McElfish said. In
almost all cases, agriculture is the most difficult area to regulate. In most states, nonpoint source programs for farmers involve voluntary measures; enforcement responsibility lies with local authorities who, for a variety of reasons, often don't follow through
The nonpoint source proposal "may penalize some of the farmers that are trying to do the right thing." —Dennis Stolte, American Farm Bureau Federation on making sure the controls are put in place, McElfish said. EPA has been working with farmers, state regulators and, until recently, environmental groups to craft a program to address nonpoint source runoff from farming operations. The discus-
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Review of New York City watershed plan begins Concerns about the effectiveness of a $2.2 billion plan to protect New York City's drinking water sources are being investigated by a National Research Council (NRC) panel. Findings from this review will be used by EPA to evaluate the new watershed management actions, the success of which are critical to city efforts to avoid construction of a filtration plant for the majority of its drinking water. The watershed protection plan, signed by the city and state of New York, upstate communities, and EPA a year ago, was criticized by the city Comptroller's Office, which negotiated revisions to the agreement that included the creation of the NRC review panel. A statement by the Comptroller's Office last spring said that "serious questions remain about the agreement's ability to protect our irreplaceable water supply, and additional safeguards may be needed." The NRC panel is charged with assessing the technical and scientific validity of the agreement's watershed protection measures. Key issues include specifications for buffer zones, siting of new sewage treatment plants, design of water monitoring programs, and use of phosphorus trading. Panel chair Charles R. O'Melia of Johns Hopkins University praised the watershed agreement as "a massive achievement" but said the panel's review was needed because the details of the plan had not been subject to scientific scrutiny. At its first meeting in September, the panel decided not only to assess whether the plan will meet current water regulations but also to consider how it would meet anticipated new standards such as revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act's Surface Water Treatment Rule. The panel's final report will be completed by October 1999, just as EPA, the city, and New York state begin their own reviews of the watershed plan's progress. —STEPHEN COLE
sions picked up steam following the fish kills in Maryland this summer. EPA's Office of Water has stepped up efforts to publish a policy to control water pollution from animal-feeding operations (AFOs), where most of the nation's chickens, pigs, and cows are raised. The policy will review current regulations controlling nutrients from AFOs to see whether they are still protective of the nation's waterways. New rules, including those that regulate smaller farming operations and the use of animal manure as fertilizer, will be proposed within the next five years, said Gregory Beatty of the Office of Water. "A lot has happened in the industry since 1976, when most of the regulations were established," Beatty admitted. EPA also will work with states on a separate enforcement program to target concentrated AFOs and identify those large enough to meet the requirement for a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act. Beatty says that there are 6600 large AFOs in the United States, and at least two-thirds of those lack discharge permits. "Nonpoint source pollution has been a big concern of ours for a long time, and the fish kills are just the latest problem to add to the stack. It just underscores the problems we have out there," said Jeff Grubbs, director of the assessment and watershed protection division in the Office of Water. EPA's interest in regulating farming is the wrong approach, said Dennis Stolte of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a lobbying organization. "We are generally opposed to [EPA's] initiative. We think it is very punitive and ignores many positive steps farmers have taken to reduce nutrients from confined animalfeeding operations," Stolte said. "The proposal may penalize some of the farmers that are trying to do the right thing." At least one small farmer supports EPA's moves. Much of the state and county law affecting farming comes after an accident, said Dave Roper, who farms 300 acres in southcentral Idaho. "Different counties and states are making regulations, hoping to catch the
VOL. 31, NO. 12, 1997 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE S TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 5 5 3 A
big guy. I think if we are all held to the same bar of minimum requirements, that gives the small farmer protection so that someday his county is not going to regulate him out of business," said Roper. Some environmentalists, how-
ever, say that the nonpoint source problem is so large, and has been ignored for so long, that the only solution is to amend the Clean Water Act. "The steps EPA is taking are positive," said Kathy Nemsick of the Clean Water Network,
a coalition of environmental groups. "But the states have had the program for 25 years. We need to strengthen the Clean Water Act to give EPA the authority to enforce the law." —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Midwestern states balk at NOX reductions in EPA's ozone plan The first step toward meeting EPA's updated ozone standard was proposed in October. The proposal, aimed at controlling the regional transport of nitrogen oxide (NOJ, is being closely watched by several midwestern and southeastern state officials who believe their sources have been unfairly targeted for reductions. The proposal sets NO^ emission caps for 22 of the states that participated in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), a two-year assessment of regional ozone problems in the eastern United States that involved 37 states and the District of Columbia. The states were unable to develop plans, due in November 1994, to meet Clean Air Act standards for ozone. The northeastern states, in particular, argued that their ozone problems were caused by pollutants from downwind states. Consequently EPA agreed to allow the states added time to develop a regional approach to meeting the standards In its final recommendation, the OTAG participants, with the exception of only a few states, agreed that ozone problems in the northeastern states were caused partially by NO.. emissions traveling from upwind states. The proposal recommends that states target electric utilities for the reductions, which EPA officials believe would be less expensive than controlling automobile emissions or other industrial sources. Overall, states collectively would have to reduce NOx emissions by 1.6 billion tons by 2005. West Virginia would have to reduce its NO.,, emissions by 44%, the largest reduction of all the states. Ohio would have to cut its emissions by 43%, Indiana by 42%, and Michigan by 32%. These states all either in compliance with the old standard for ozone or have
Some state environmental offices plan to reevaluate the OTAG data, said David Drake, chief of Michigan's air quality division (ES&T, March h197, 126A-127A).
"Turning off all of the sources in this area is not going to bring the northeastern states into attainment." —Tim Mallin, American Electric Power Co.
"The modeling done by OTAG was probably the most advanced analysis of an environmental issue that has ever occurred," Drake admitted, "but it was done on a large, regional scale. There was not a state-by-state analysis,
and therefore you cannot conclude that Michigan's emissions really contribute to the problem." The OTAG data also do not adequately show that the emission reductions in the midwestern states will help the ozone problem in the northeastern states, maintains Tim Mallin, manager of environmental affairs in the West Virginia office of American Electric Power Co. (AEP), which owns 21 coal-fired power plants. "Our reading of the science and what has come out of OTAG is that the contribution of NO to the areas of nonattainment is 2-6 parts per billion," Mallin said. "Turning off all of the this area is not going to bring the northeastern states into attainment There are too many cars and too many sources in too small an area" EPA modelers argue that because ozone forms from the com-
Cutting NOx, state by state Several southeastern and midwestern states believe EPA's proposed reductions in nitrogen oxides (below) are not supported by regional air quality modeling from the Ozone Transport Assessment Group.
talcpri stpns t o m o v e very closp to
compliance state officials sav 5 5 4 A • VOL. 31, NO. 12, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
